Is the juxtaposition of the Christmas holiday and the undoing of Amendment 3 in Utah merely coincidence? Probably. But I just can’t help myself. I have to point out the irony of it. The irony starts with the “reason for the season” (we’ll just ignore that he wasn’t actually born on December 25). Whether you believe in Jesus, prophets, or pagan gods, you’re probably familiar with the story and what he was about. To sum who he was and what he was all about:

He wasn’t well liked, and among the reasons for not being well liked was all the times he mingled with people he wasn’t supposed to mingle with. In short, he’s like the guy at the party who tries to create room at the table for everyone: you kind of admire him for the thought and hate him for making you share. Maybe he was like that because there wasn’t any room at any inn for him.

Like Jesus, some County Clerks in Utah made room for gay and lesbian couples when Amendment 3 was found to be unconstitutional.

The most distressing part of all the arguments against gay marriage, especially in red states like Utah, is no one is willing to let us enjoy family life, which is one of the most conservative things a person could want. But… those who have a monopoly on family don’t want to share.

Not to let the cat out of the bag, but we want to start a family at some point down the road. The most distressing part about it is the legal uncertainty we’ll face. Depending on where we live, both of us might not have legal custody. We might not have joint healthcare (and I can’t even fathom how much that will cost; healthcare is already expensive enough).

Anyway, back to the reason for this post. ’Tis the season to be merry and bright, so I’ll part with this thought: It’s the time of year when we all celebrate something meaningful (whether worshipping Jesus, gods, or celebrating the shortest day of the year and welcoming more and more sunlight) and spend time with our families. So let’s learn from this little girl and get back to focusing on what’s directly important to all of us.

And finally, let’s have pity on plights and open our doors wether that be opening courthouses for gay and lesbian couples, sharing legal protections for families of gay and lesbian households, or just opening the door.

Something else I’ve learned with all the hubbub around marriage equality: we’re all just looking for information that confirms what we already “know” (i.e., believe), and we rarely engage in discussion in a way that supports learning or discovery of new information. In other words, we’re all just trying to make a point, and we need the most believable stuff out there to win: statistics and an abstract from a research article.

I’ll illustrate by referring to the infamous Regnerus study. If you believe marriage should be between one man and one woman, you might grab onto the study and say something like “research shows that children raised by gay couples aren’t as well-adjusted as children raised by a mom and a day” without having first read the study.

Or you might rely on a summary of the research from a secondhand source like Fox News.

Or a friend.

In short, few of us do our own reading and thinking, and even fewer of us think critically about how people come to the conclusions they come to. We accept it on authority. And I’ll admit — I do it too. Jon Stewart is my go too source for accurate, factual information.

And this becomes problematic when it comes to important topics like marriage equality and human rights. It almost always becomes a game of he said she said. Or rather Jon Stewart said Bill O’Reilly said.

I’m not really sure how the discussion should happen. It seems like asking questions and having a dialogue should be enough, but that always comes across as challenging the source of authority. And this is problematic when the authority is God, a prophet of God, or Jon Stewart. You can’t challenge them. They’re smart, educated people.

Here’s another problem. It’s easy for me when people challenge Jon Stewart. He’s just a dude with a talk show. It’s probably not as easy for other people when God is challenged. He’s THE dude that knows it all. And when research doesn’t confirm (or deny) the message he trying to send through his messengers, it kinda plays with you.

That’s what I love about our country. It was set up so we won’t have to have these conversations. It was set up so you can go to church on Sunday and I can watch Jon Stewart four nights of the week. You can believe I’m going to hell for marrying a dude, and I can believe you’re wrong. I can believe I’m happy, and you can believe only straight families are happy. I’m okay with that.

So I’ll conclude with one point.

And state what I want (and it’s not an attack on your God or your religion) regardless of what research or religion says: equality.

Two court cases related to marriage equality were heard this week (Proposition 8 and DOMA) and left behind good and bad discussion: discussion that brought people together and discussion that further divided. At least that’s how it has been for me. I have family and friends in Utah where the majority of people are against marriage equality. And I have co-workers and friends here in Maryland where the majority of people are in favor of marriage equality (and if they’re not in favor of marriage equality they are at least willing to share in my happiness). This means my news feed on Facebook has been full of all different types of political discussion, which raised questions for me:

How do you respond to people you disagree with? Do you try to see their point of view? Do you try to get them to see your point of view? Do you try to convince them your point of view is good?

I’d like to believe good people can be convinced to do things by people in authority even when the things they do hurt others. So part of me thinks it’s worth a shot to convince them of my point of view. Something like, “Hey, when your leaders tell you to put money into campaigns like Yes on 8, Protect Marriage, or Preserve Marriage, (or to otherwise speak out against marriage equality) you’re sending the message to me that you think it’s fair Dan and I pay more in taxes (somewhere around $3000 per year) and health care than we would if one of us were female.” But that doesn’t really seem to help.

“The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram, which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience.” Wikipedia

And then I stop and think, “Hey, maybe I’m being selfish. Maybe I need to stop and think about them and their point of view.” Well, I used to be one of them and so I did think like them. What ultimately changed my opinion on the topic of marriage equality was understanding that I could maintain my system of beliefs while others enjoyed legal benefits. This doesn’t seem to help as much as it should though. I can’t do the thinking for them. They’ve got to do the thinking, learning, and stretching outside of their comfort zone, which typically involves going against authority — and that just ain’t gonna happen.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow their buildings to be used for political events, does not use their pulpit for political messages, and never uses their member lists of politics. EVER. Unless it’s a moral issue…

And then I remember what happened when I tried to engage people in discussions about Proposition 8 back in 2008: lots of feuds, divisions, he said she saids, and “unfriending”. So maybe I shouldn’t speak up.

And then I remember what happens when people don’t speak up: absolutely nothing. I want something to happen. I don’t want to be held to the standards of others when it comes to the legal rights I should enjoy. I don’t want your religious beliefs to dictate what my employer’s insurance company charges me for health insurance nor how much my government taxes me (to name a few things). And I actually think it’s what you (those who disagree with marriage equality) want too: freedom from the religious beliefs and practices of others and government recognition of the marriage your [insert religious person here] performed.

“A right delayed is a right denied” Martin Luther King, Jr.

And that leads into something I find interesting. A lot of religious people have been saying the solution to the marriage equality problem is for government to step out of marriage. That would essentially place them in the same position I’m in: if the government doesn’t recognize a legal union or contract between two people then the union doesn’t exist, and this means no one can recognize your union (because it doesn’t exist). So… if y’all are really for government stepping out of marriage, I just want to make sure you’re okay with paying more in taxes and health insurance, or not having visitation rights at the hospital. This would look something like you going to the hospital to visit your wife and the hospital saying, “Oh, we don’t recognize [insert religion] marriages. You’ll need to provide legal documentation of your union.” And then you’ll walk away or present a legal document you paid a lawyer $3000 to $4000 to write up for you. Is that really what you want? Or let’s say you want to marry that latina girl you met while serving as a missionary and live in the U.S. You can’t do it if the government won’t recognize your religious union.

And just because it’s a cat that looks almost as handsome as Mishaand he’s in a bag and the bag is an HRC bag…

See the resemblance? Here’s Misha with his pride beads on.

So how do we have this conversation about the things that matter most to us in a way that’s productive?

Dakota Ary of Fort Worth, Texas is the newest poster child for the National Organization for Marriage.

So what happened? It’s hard to know. The story varies from reporter to reporter, but one thing should be pretty clear: the case is a little more complicated than the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) would like you to believe. It’s not just about a kid sharing his religious beliefs in class.

Marvin Vann, who is, according to dallasvoice.com, a member of a group called LGBTQ S.A.V.E.S. which was formed to protect LGBTQ students and teachers from anti-gay harassment, acknowledged that conservative media groups focused too much on Ary’s story and not enough on the teacher’s story, Fulbright Scholar Kristopher Franks. Here’s what Vann had to say:

“Concerned that only one side of the incident was being reported, we met Friday night with Mr. Franks. His account contradicts Ary and his lawyer’s version of events, and has been substantiated by several of the other students in class at the time. We found Mr. Franks’ explanation entirely credible.”

Considering this statement and other information from the Dallas Voice, the story starts to look very different. It shifts from an innocent Christian kid simply sharing his beliefs like he would in Sunday School to something akin to intimidation. And not just an isolated incident, but a series of incidents building and leading up to the incident NOM focused on in the video.

According to the Dallas Voice, the comment referred to in the NOM video was “the latest in an ongoing series of incidents in which Ary and a group of three of his friends have made anti-gay comments to and about [Franks].” Apparently, the photo in question had been posted by Franks for another class he teaches, Sociology. Students in that class had torn up the photo and then other students had replaced the photo with a hand drawn version. And then another group of students, probably the ones who tore it down, replaced it with a verse from the Bible, Leviticus to be exact. In case you’re not aware of what the Bible says about homosexuality, here’s a verse:

Leviticus 20:13 suggests the death penalty for homosexuality

What’s more, Franks, according to reports by the Dallas Voice, had been the subject of other anti-gay harassment and intimidation including hateful messages left in his classroom and vandalism to his car. Moreover, there appeared to be general problems at the school with teachers harassing and bullying other teachers and retaliation occurring against victims who spoke up. There’s no information on where Franks stands as far as bully of victim, but it helps to understand the backdrop and potential for tension at the school on an administrative level.

So take NOM’s video with a grain of salt: the incident is a little more complicated and nuanced than NOM would have you believe. It’s important to consider all the information out there before forming an opinion.

Finally, conservatives have a tendency to use cases like this to suggest that marriage equality brings with it an increase in cases like these. It’s important to point out that if marriage equality is to cause situations like this, gay marriage must already exist. According to Wikipedia, Texas does not recognize any form of same-sex unions.

Dark red: State constitution bans same-sex marriage and some or all other kinds of same-sex unions

What’s awesome is that in places like Maryland, people are getting at the facts. Same-sex marriage laws don’t change laws about school curriculum; laws about school curriculum change laws about school curriculum.

I stumbled across this video the other day. I don’t agree with it. At all. But I’d like to share it in juxtaposition to another video to illustrate a point. Here’s the first video.

Watching it makes me feel pretty ugly and ashamed. I’m not benefiting society in any way [insert cricket noise]. And I’m also harming society. Well, it’s not me, per se, it’s my relationship. And that’s why society shouldn’t promote or permit my relationship; society should prohibit my relationship. My relationship is similar to pedophilia and incest.

I don’t actually believe that. That’s just what groups like the National Organization for Marriage believe and preach. And if I say I disagree or argue to the contrary, they’ll chew me up and spit me back out and declare “Same-sex marriage advocates need to be more tolerant.”

Same-sex marriage advocates need to be more tolerant. A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

You see, this is an issue of tolerance for opponents of same-sex marriage. But don’t get confused. They don’t have to tolerate anything in opposition to their beliefs. They’re in a position of power. They have privilege. They’re right, so ignore people like me. I’m just the minority. What do I know?

I mean, really. What do I know? It’s just impacts me. And don’t worry. I’m not upset. Even though they say all these crazy things about me, they still love me. It’s that tough love kind of a thing. The type of love that makes you stronger, turns you into a better person. And that’s what makes the next video so awesome. It illustrates where this all breaks down.

History suggests that people with these kinds of views about other people think they’re right and have proper justification for treating people differently. They also don’t think they’re mean or bigoted. They’re just referring people to fact and truth. I mean, at one point it was a fact that all races of people were expressions of different species, white people being the best. All other races were of inferior material so of course we should treat them differently. And of course the law should treat them differently. They act differently. Their behavior is different, and it’s not discrimination to treat behavior different.

Isn’t this discrimination against homosexuals? A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

It’s no different for gay people, right? They’re made of something different. They look different, act different, and even their relationships are different. And those differences mean they shouldn’t have all the same rights and protections under the law. We’re justified in treating the differently…

One of the adults in the video, reflecting on his childhood experience with discrimination over his eye color said, “I felt powerless and hopeless.” One group of kids was saying to the other “I’m better. You don’t deserve all the privileges I have because I’m better. It’s in my blood.” In essence, it’s no different from the message opponents of marriage equality are sending to gay people. They’re saying to us, “I’m better. I get protection under the law. You don’t deserve it.”

But what do I know? Technically speaking, I can divorce Dan and marry a woman.

The law already treats everyone equally. Every citizen can marry someone of the opposite sex. A message from the National Organization for Marriage.

Neil J. Young shared an interesting history of politics and equal rights within the LDS (Mormon) Church on The Opinion Pages of The New York Times. In short, I didn’t realize Mormon leaders had taken such an active role in fighting against equality for women; many of the quotes Young shared were surprising and appalling. The purpose of this post is to add to what Young shared.

Young made a great comparison of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) and the current movement for equal rights for the LGBTQ community. He highlighted the experiences of Sonia Johnson working from within the Church in a grassroots effort to gain support of the ERA. Likewise, groups like Mormons Building Bridges and Mormons for Marriage Equality are making grassroots efforts to either invite LGBTQ members of the Church back to church (Mormons Building Bridges) or push for full equality (Mormons for Marriage Equality).

Something Young didn’t highlight as well are the illusions the Church creates for members of the Church. The illusions are that you are free to think what you want on socio-political issues and vote how you want to vote on those issues. Regarding the ERA, the Church stated:

Is favoring the ERA grounds for excommunication?

No. Contrary to news reports, Church membership has neither been threatened nor denied because of agreement with the proposed amendment. However, there is a fundamental difference between speaking in favor of the ERA on the basis of its merits on the one hand, and, on the other, ridiculing the Church and its leaders and trying to harm the institution and frustrate its work.

So exactly what does that last sentence mean? Anything they want it to mean. As Young pointed out, Johnson was excommunicate not because she supported the ERA but because she was “not in harmony with church doctrine concerning the nature of God in the manner in which He directs His church on earth”. I’ll point out the contradiction: the Church believed her support of the ERA was in opposition to the way God directs the LDS Church (women can’t receive revelation and no one should receive revelation contrary to the revelation of the Prophet). In other words, she supported the ERA because of her own personal conviction, which contrasted revelation the Prophet had received, and thus she was trying to harm the Church through her support of the ERA.

So, the Church does a wonderful job of creating the illusion that members are free to think what they want on political issues and vote how they want. After all, they’re not going to discipline you for not agreeing on political issues. They’re going to discipline you for trying to frustrate the work of the Church. The two things are very different (but not really).

Another point Young didn’t highlight is the fact that Church leaders understand the social consequences for people who speak out against them. If you speak up about opposing Church leaders on political issues, you’ve just committed social suicide. You’ll be ridiculed and stigmatized. You’ll lose the trust and good will of those in your congregations. And maybe this is why the Church is being less heavy handed when it comes to opposition of the their efforts to stomp out marriage equality: they don’t have to do the disciplining because other members of the Church will do it for them.

Young pointed to this example from Johnson. Members in her local congregation said the following:

“If you are really serious about being a Mormon you will sustain the Prophet… So far as I am concerned – you are not a ‘Mormon.’”

“If we don’t want to follow the prophet, what are we in the church for? We’d better get out.”

Few things are worse than not being considered a Mormon among your Mormon peers. Well, being called an apostate is probably worse. In Mormon theology, apostates are not only just not Mormon, they’re also an enemies to God. They didn’t even make it onto the list Five Kinds of Mormons.

Mormon Sonia Johsnon chained herself to an LDS temple to show her support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Image from NY Times.

Here are things being said by Mormons who support marriage inequality to Mormons who support marriage equality:

“…you do not espouse God principles, stop pretending you do. You are choosing to look the other way of what is said and who established marriage and why.”

“homosexuality is a sin and we have definetely never been told to endorse sin…..just a thought!”

“This debate is a waste of time for LDS folks. You either sustain the First Presidency 100%, or you don’t. If you do, and if your opinions and beliefs aren’t in perfect alignment with theirs, then you need to do whatever it takes to sustain President Monson. We’ve always been told that in the last days, it will be VERY difficult and unpopular to stand strong as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints. Wake up!”

“The voice of popular opinion means nothing in matters of Christian ideals. All the inhabitants of Sodom and Gommorrha shared beliefs in the same wicked things and what happened to them? They were ALL destroyed.”

“[Jesus] would not approve of gay MARRIAGE and deep down, you[‘d] know that if you are an endowed member of the church.”

“If you truly feel that strongly that gay people should be married, I implore you to write the first presidency that the proclamation is wrong. Either you believe it or you don’t.”

I could go on, but I’m getting tired of reading this stuff. So, for the Church, what happened with the ERA in the past is similar to what’s happening with the gay rights now. The Church seems to be backing off members who disagree on political issues, probably because they understand members of the Church will keep other members of the Church in line. Arguably, this makes the Church look better — they don’t have to excommunicate as many people.

Mormons in Washington DC marched in Capital Pride to show support for marriage equality.

Another way this makes the Church look better is they don’t have to instruct members to fight against marriage equality; they now know this is the expectation. And thus is the birth of grassroots efforts to stomp out rights for the LGBTQ community. For instance, in Maryland, Mormons are gathering signatures to put marriage rights up for a vote (just like Mormons did in California with Proposition 8).

It will be interesting to see how future Mormons look back at this point in their history. Current Mormons don’t seem to care much about the Church’s history with the ERA. At least they don’t appear to get all hyped up about it. Will it be the same with marriage equality? Will they view it as a win for Jesus? Will the prophesies of orthodox Mormons be correct, namely that the Prophet is operating with divine wisdom and foresees things we normal mortals can’t see? Or will it go down in their history as another mark of shame? Share your thoughts.